A barn raising is a community effort. It’s something that’s done to aid a family – often more than one – with one of the most labor-intensive and expensive parts of getting settled domestically. It’s something that’s built collectively, because it’s an impossible task for just one person (or even a handful of people) to complete. It literally takes a village. And without barns and the group effort to build and tend to them, the community itself will suffer.
Communities – online and off – are ecosystems of their own, too. They’re not built. They grow, and they have to be collectively nurtured in order to survive. They don’t just exist without tending, and the people that make that happen are NOT the “community managers”. They are the community members themselves.
We can agree on that part, right? Okay good. Now here’s the rub.
If you are a member of a community, and if you are asking for and expecting the benefits of that acceptance, you have a responsibility to contribute to the community in a constructive manner. It is your responsibility to ensure that you build instead of tear down. It is your responsibility to steward the health and future of that community as one of its inhabitants.
That’s not to say you can’t disagree, engage in intelligent discourse or respectful dialogue, or hold differing opinions. But if you’re asking to be part of that group of people and asking for them to embrace you (including exercising your freedom to speak your mind), you bear the responsibility of creating dissonance with a positive purpose. Being contrarian for the sake of it is utterly valueless.
Why? That community isn’t owned by you, and it is not your stage. You didn’t build it alone, and you are not entitled to take a hammer to its walls because it pleases you or makes you feel important behind the shelter of that keyboard. That community is collectively invested in, and you are a part of it. You are not it’s purpose nor its sole steward. Simply put, it’s not about you.
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. That’s what makes communities powerful. You are not entitled to membership and acceptance. The community does not owe you anything. Truly being a part of something bigger than yourself means that you earn it. So if you enter communities to tip tables, throw rocks, leech off of others and leave a trail of self-important debris in your wake, you aren’t a community member. You’re a vandal.
We have many platforms that are open and freely accessible today for us to speak our minds, share our thoughts and opinions, and express our individuality. It’s an amazing time to be an individual voice.
But that does not and never will negate the need for respect, and the recognition that you are raising a barn upon which others will also come to rely. Can we learn to behave accordingly?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=35eb947e-866f-4152-8cfa-74abaad8001e)
Would think that if someone is upset or gets angered over your post, Amber, he/she will never “get” community.
You are definitely right, in any community, group, organization, a level of professionalism or at least civility is expected. That’s why there are laws, rules and even common sense, unwritten rules hopefully enforced by community members.
Those who contribute a lot to a community — particularly those who start it (like a company) — tend to get the most benefit. And, that’s how it should.
I’ve seen several comments that take issue with “community manager.” I doubt very few take that literally (at least I hope not). With any community, it helps if there is a driver to steer it, keep it fresh and invigorated. Assumingly, this is the person or the people who started it. But, without active members, all communities fade away.
Thanks for the post!
-Mike
Mike Driehorsts last blog post..To reach social network members, don’t advertise; engage
Would think that if someone is upset or gets angered over your post, Amber, he/she will never “get” community.
You are definitely right, in any community, group, organization, a level of professionalism or at least civility is expected. That’s why there are laws, rules and even common sense, unwritten rules hopefully enforced by community members.
Those who contribute a lot to a community — particularly those who start it (like a company) — tend to get the most benefit. And, that’s how it should.
I’ve seen several comments that take issue with “community manager.” I doubt very few take that literally (at least I hope not). With any community, it helps if there is a driver to steer it, keep it fresh and invigorated. Assumingly, this is the person or the people who started it. But, without active members, all communities fade away.
Thanks for the post!
-Mike
Mike Driehorsts last blog post..To reach social network members, don’t advertise; engage
Preach. On.
You’re right on so many points. As community members, many forget the responsibility of not only respecting the content that’s built around/for them, but to bring value to the community; a responsibility that doesn’t just lie with community managers. Members need to be able to share their own positive thoughts and ideas that helps better not just other members but the community manager as well. Thoughts and ideas that are brought through positive discourse, not questioning of one’s choices.
The thought of having free reign because you make up a community is a thought that really needs to be dispelled.
Thanks for this, Amber.
Sonny Gills last blog post..#CmtyChat Kickoff
Preach. On.
You’re right on so many points. As community members, many forget the responsibility of not only respecting the content that’s built around/for them, but to bring value to the community; a responsibility that doesn’t just lie with community managers. Members need to be able to share their own positive thoughts and ideas that helps better not just other members but the community manager as well. Thoughts and ideas that are brought through positive discourse, not questioning of one’s choices.
The thought of having free reign because you make up a community is a thought that really needs to be dispelled.
Thanks for this, Amber.
Sonny Gills last blog post..#CmtyChat Kickoff
Right On.
Cory Doctorow wrote a great piece for InformationWeek a while back called “The Troll Whisperer” about keeping vandals from ruining a community.
Its a two-way street. You get out of a community what you put into it. There are tons of folks in every community who aren’t vocal, who dont stand up, who dont outwardly show support. There are tons of people who pay more into the collective than they get out of it – because the reward for them isn’t about what they receive, its about what they can give.
Then there are the jerks.
If they arent dealt with, they can repel the newbies and the non-vocal members, tick off the oldtimers and generally ruin everyones time. At the same time, god-like retribution isn’t always the answer (especially for some people who were raised by wolves) because it can reple the newbies and non-vocal and tick off the oldtimers. Sometimes its about letting the community police itself (if it is ready).
Its a delicate balance of making sure everyone knows whats acceptable and making sure enforcement is evenly applied to all. But this post – bringing it out into the open is critical.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Sean W. Bohans last blog post..Community Community Community
Right On.
Cory Doctorow wrote a great piece for InformationWeek a while back called “The Troll Whisperer” about keeping vandals from ruining a community.
Its a two-way street. You get out of a community what you put into it. There are tons of folks in every community who aren’t vocal, who dont stand up, who dont outwardly show support. There are tons of people who pay more into the collective than they get out of it – because the reward for them isn’t about what they receive, its about what they can give.
Then there are the jerks.
If they arent dealt with, they can repel the newbies and the non-vocal members, tick off the oldtimers and generally ruin everyones time. At the same time, god-like retribution isn’t always the answer (especially for some people who were raised by wolves) because it can reple the newbies and non-vocal and tick off the oldtimers. Sometimes its about letting the community police itself (if it is ready).
Its a delicate balance of making sure everyone knows whats acceptable and making sure enforcement is evenly applied to all. But this post – bringing it out into the open is critical.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Sean W. Bohans last blog post..Community Community Community
Amber, you certainly have a way with words. I guess your soapbox didn’t stay put away very long! It is a good thing because reminders to play nice are always helpful.
Your point about contrarians chiming in just to be contrary is well taken. I would add that the other side of the pendulum is equally offensive. A true community evolves as new people with differing thoughts join in. The original members shouldn’t try to govern participation as long as it is respectful.
Everyone I meet knows more than I do about something. I love the learning and sharing in social media. The contrarians and bosses, not so much.
Debra Elliss last blog post..5 Ways Direct Marketing Companies Shoot Themselves in the Foot
Amber, you certainly have a way with words. I guess your soapbox didn’t stay put away very long! It is a good thing because reminders to play nice are always helpful.
Your point about contrarians chiming in just to be contrary is well taken. I would add that the other side of the pendulum is equally offensive. A true community evolves as new people with differing thoughts join in. The original members shouldn’t try to govern participation as long as it is respectful.
Everyone I meet knows more than I do about something. I love the learning and sharing in social media. The contrarians and bosses, not so much.
Debra Elliss last blog post..5 Ways Direct Marketing Companies Shoot Themselves in the Foot
Debra, that’s a very good point. The whole “you’re doing it wrong” thing bugs me, unless that behavior is destructive. There’s damaging, and there’s just different. The distinction is very important, and part of what creates robust and interesting communities. Point well taken.
You are absolutely, 100% right.
The way I look at it…if you wouldn’t walk into a room full of people & do what you just did…then don’t do it in my community.
Fortunately, with online communities, we have the ability to exclude those that clutter our air with garbage. I exercise that ability daily.
I may disagree with someone, but I keep the discourse respectful as if I was sitting across from them at a table. I actually won a new client with a debate over creationism in schools… on Twitter no less.
So, thank you for this post…it’s a great reminder 🙂
Jen
You are absolutely, 100% right.
The way I look at it…if you wouldn’t walk into a room full of people & do what you just did…then don’t do it in my community.
Fortunately, with online communities, we have the ability to exclude those that clutter our air with garbage. I exercise that ability daily.
I may disagree with someone, but I keep the discourse respectful as if I was sitting across from them at a table. I actually won a new client with a debate over creationism in schools… on Twitter no less.
So, thank you for this post…it’s a great reminder 🙂
Jen
Hmmm…
This one really makes me think. Here is the part that conflicts inside of me. On one hand, I agree with you. I think that respect and civilized dialogue are what build a community and make their members stick around. You won’t find any community where people will agree 100%, it will be boring and disintegrate quickly.
However, who sets the bar for what is civilized discourse and what is harassment? How can you set that? Passion does show up as statements that may too harsh sometimes. Constant restatement of one’s position is expected when disagreeing. What one person considers too much, someone else may consider part of the learning process. See where I am going?
How do you define civilized behavior without going overboard?
I know that we must set rules for communities, and we all know the basic rules of engagement and living in a socialized world. But, at what point does disagreement turn into tearing down walls? And who gets to make the call?
Of course, know you think I am just complaining and can delete my comment 🙂 (just kidding, I hope).
I think you raise a great, very interesting point that should be discussed and agreed by the community when laying down the rules.
Good job, as usual.
Esteban Kolskys last blog post..Forget Social CRM, Just Add Social to Your CRM
Hmmm…
This one really makes me think. Here is the part that conflicts inside of me. On one hand, I agree with you. I think that respect and civilized dialogue are what build a community and make their members stick around. You won’t find any community where people will agree 100%, it will be boring and disintegrate quickly.
However, who sets the bar for what is civilized discourse and what is harassment? How can you set that? Passion does show up as statements that may too harsh sometimes. Constant restatement of one’s position is expected when disagreeing. What one person considers too much, someone else may consider part of the learning process. See where I am going?
How do you define civilized behavior without going overboard?
I know that we must set rules for communities, and we all know the basic rules of engagement and living in a socialized world. But, at what point does disagreement turn into tearing down walls? And who gets to make the call?
Of course, know you think I am just complaining and can delete my comment 🙂 (just kidding, I hope).
I think you raise a great, very interesting point that should be discussed and agreed by the community when laying down the rules.
Good job, as usual.
Esteban Kolskys last blog post..Forget Social CRM, Just Add Social to Your CRM
Esteban, the thing is that I think you don’t “define” it or “set rules”. It’s called personal responsibility and good judgment. The community decides what’s acceptable. And when they’ve built something they value, they will protect it and decide for themselves where the line is. It’s not an exact equation. But common sense really has a lot to do with it.
And I agree with you on that.
I said it before… maybe i did not ask the question properly. the question would be what to do with the people who don’t pick up on what you call common sense…
I am guessing that i went beyond what you were talking about.
Esteban Kolskys last blog post..Forget Social CRM, Just Add Social to Your CRM
And I agree with you on that.
I said it before… maybe i did not ask the question properly. the question would be what to do with the people who don’t pick up on what you call common sense…
I am guessing that i went beyond what you were talking about.
Esteban Kolskys last blog post..Forget Social CRM, Just Add Social to Your CRM
How very well said. I was just reading about Social Intelligence today and I believe this is called toxic behaviour. So it can not only tear down the barn, it can spread into the fields and stop growth. Thanks for being courageous and saying something.
How very well said. I was just reading about Social Intelligence today and I believe this is called toxic behaviour. So it can not only tear down the barn, it can spread into the fields and stop growth. Thanks for being courageous and saying something.
“…you are not entitled to take a hammer to its walls because it pleases you or makes you feel important behind the shelter of that keyboard.”
One of my mentors and I were discussing this recently. The lack of social cues we have when we communicate online is a big hesitation for him. He is very apprehensive to putting his hand in the hand in the conversation pot because he are afraid of it getting bitten off. And I’m not talking about building his own community. I’m talking about joining and becoming more active in a community that is relevant to him.
I’m not saying that his decision to not get involved is right, but it is a shame that someone with the caliber of experience and wisdom that he has, feels threatened by this sort of argumentative nonsense that you are talking about.
Good thoughts.
Chris Wilsons last blog post..Has Harley Ditched it’s Brand for the Hollywood Spotlight?
I hear you on that one Chris. I often wonder would my professors and colleagues could offer more than just their classrooms and books – not that I don’t value that deeply. It would be nice to see more smarties take to the blog.
I love your response to Esteban because I believe it is, in principle, how things should be…
but in my experience, you need to set ground rules up front. “This is not acceptable” is an profound gesture to the members about codes of conduct, what will be tolerated and “what kind of party we are gonna have here”. Screens provide this weird disconnect between how we behave in real life and how we act online – where mild mannered, polite folks turn into raging, abusive, trash-talking, threatening, f-bomb dropping loonies when they get in front of a keyboard.
I think there are plenty of communities where a few jerks ruined it and the community couldnt/didnt/failed to protect it (even though they valued it). Its easier in the digital space to walk away and find another party then it is in real life.
and yes, common sense does have a lot to do with it. When a community does rise up (and I have seen this) it is a beautiful thing. Except when they rise up and demand the community owners/leaders/managers “why didnt you do anything” It is a balance
Sean W. Bohans last blog post..Community Community Community
“…you are not entitled to take a hammer to its walls because it pleases you or makes you feel important behind the shelter of that keyboard.”
One of my mentors and I were discussing this recently. The lack of social cues we have when we communicate online is a big hesitation for him. He is very apprehensive to putting his hand in the hand in the conversation pot because he are afraid of it getting bitten off. And I’m not talking about building his own community. I’m talking about joining and becoming more active in a community that is relevant to him.
I’m not saying that his decision to not get involved is right, but it is a shame that someone with the caliber of experience and wisdom that he has, feels threatened by this sort of argumentative nonsense that you are talking about.
Good thoughts.
Chris Wilsons last blog post..Has Harley Ditched it’s Brand for the Hollywood Spotlight?
I hear you on that one Chris. I often wonder would my professors and colleagues could offer more than just their classrooms and books – not that I don’t value that deeply. It would be nice to see more smarties take to the blog.
I love your response to Esteban because I believe it is, in principle, how things should be…
but in my experience, you need to set ground rules up front. “This is not acceptable” is an profound gesture to the members about codes of conduct, what will be tolerated and “what kind of party we are gonna have here”. Screens provide this weird disconnect between how we behave in real life and how we act online – where mild mannered, polite folks turn into raging, abusive, trash-talking, threatening, f-bomb dropping loonies when they get in front of a keyboard.
I think there are plenty of communities where a few jerks ruined it and the community couldnt/didnt/failed to protect it (even though they valued it). Its easier in the digital space to walk away and find another party then it is in real life.
and yes, common sense does have a lot to do with it. When a community does rise up (and I have seen this) it is a beautiful thing. Except when they rise up and demand the community owners/leaders/managers “why didnt you do anything” It is a balance
Sean W. Bohans last blog post..Community Community Community
I can see why your post would rub some people the wrong way.
And that is because, unfortunately, many members of communities do exactly what you talked about. They see a community as their own platform, and begin to, without care or reason, redecorate its mission, objectives or goals.
I’ve experienced this in the communities I work with. It’s not pretty and can be incredibly destructive. To be fair, it is easy to see why it happens.
A person finds a community about X. They are REALLY passionate about X and are eager to join and spread the word. Then, they begin to see how their personal objectives can be adopted to X, or better – how X can be adopted into their personal objectives. The member doesn’t think they are doing anything wrong because they still support X. But, the reality is they are supporting something complete different. They are supporting Y under the pretense and banner of X.
We’ve all know this happens.. the question I’ll ask is why? Why or how does this happen? What steps can be taken to prevent this.
DaveMurrs last blog post..The Undercurrent
I can see why your post would rub some people the wrong way.
And that is because, unfortunately, many members of communities do exactly what you talked about. They see a community as their own platform, and begin to, without care or reason, redecorate its mission, objectives or goals.
I’ve experienced this in the communities I work with. It’s not pretty and can be incredibly destructive. To be fair, it is easy to see why it happens.
A person finds a community about X. They are REALLY passionate about X and are eager to join and spread the word. Then, they begin to see how their personal objectives can be adopted to X, or better – how X can be adopted into their personal objectives. The member doesn’t think they are doing anything wrong because they still support X. But, the reality is they are supporting something complete different. They are supporting Y under the pretense and banner of X.
We’ve all know this happens.. the question I’ll ask is why? Why or how does this happen? What steps can be taken to prevent this.
DaveMurrs last blog post..The Undercurrent
I love this.
I have no idea (nor do I really want to know) what particular incident(s) or person(s) inspired it – but I’m glad you wrote it. I needed to read it today… and I think you said it brilliantly.
But I’m still trying to figure out who the heck could be offended by it… strike that, I don’t care to know who could be offended by it. It would only be someone trying to justify their own outrageous behavior.
Thanks, as always.
Lucretia Pruitts last blog post..Consistently Inconsistent
I love this.
I have no idea (nor do I really want to know) what particular incident(s) or person(s) inspired it – but I’m glad you wrote it. I needed to read it today… and I think you said it brilliantly.
But I’m still trying to figure out who the heck could be offended by it… strike that, I don’t care to know who could be offended by it. It would only be someone trying to justify their own outrageous behavior.
Thanks, as always.
Lucretia Pruitts last blog post..Consistently Inconsistent
The barn-raising metaphor resonates on many levels.
Taken literally, it calls to mind the tremendous restorative value that initiatives like Habitat for Humanity have in physical communities. It also asks us to face the challenge of achieving a sense of collective purpose in an increasingly fragmented and dis-integrated culture. With apologies to Debra, it is difficult to wrap your brain around the idea of a barn when your preferred structure is a soapbox.
It is indeed an amazing time to be an individual voice. But sustainable communities are integrated and open-source. You can no longer make your voice heard simply by shouting the loudest.
Bill, my comment wasn’t an endorsement of a soapbox structure. My objective is to challenge those who think they make the community rules. Using Amber’s barn-raising example, there is more than one way to build a barn. Some set the corner posts, build the walls on the ground, and then raise them (hence the name) to be attached to the frame.
This works nicely in flat country, but what if the barn is on the side of a hill? And, there isn’t enough leverage from people and equipment to lift the walls? A better approach is to set the corner posts, then build the walls from the ground up. In this case, what happens if the self appointed leaders demand that everyone comply with their “rules”? The barn may never be raised.
My point is simply this: Strong communities respect all members, even if their opinions differ. We can respectfully disagree, but we shouldn’t establish rules to exclude others because they think differently.
Debra Elliss last blog post..5 Ways Direct Marketing Companies Shoot Themselves in the Foot
I’m afraid I wasn’t clear. I was apologizing for appropriating your soapbox reference, not criticizing your use of it. I think we are in perfect agreement.
Bill, thank you for the clarification. I misunderstood your reference.
Amber, we’re happy to provide a good example of people in a community working on their communication skills
Debra Elliss last blog post..Who’s Telling Your Story?
The barn-raising metaphor resonates on many levels.
Taken literally, it calls to mind the tremendous restorative value that initiatives like Habitat for Humanity have in physical communities. It also asks us to face the challenge of achieving a sense of collective purpose in an increasingly fragmented and dis-integrated culture. With apologies to Debra, it is difficult to wrap your brain around the idea of a barn when your preferred structure is a soapbox.
It is indeed an amazing time to be an individual voice. But sustainable communities are integrated and open-source. You can no longer make your voice heard simply by shouting the loudest.
Bill, my comment wasn’t an endorsement of a soapbox structure. My objective is to challenge those who think they make the community rules. Using Amber’s barn-raising example, there is more than one way to build a barn. Some set the corner posts, build the walls on the ground, and then raise them (hence the name) to be attached to the frame.
This works nicely in flat country, but what if the barn is on the side of a hill? And, there isn’t enough leverage from people and equipment to lift the walls? A better approach is to set the corner posts, then build the walls from the ground up. In this case, what happens if the self appointed leaders demand that everyone comply with their “rules”? The barn may never be raised.
My point is simply this: Strong communities respect all members, even if their opinions differ. We can respectfully disagree, but we shouldn’t establish rules to exclude others because they think differently.
Debra Elliss last blog post..5 Ways Direct Marketing Companies Shoot Themselves in the Foot
I’m afraid I wasn’t clear. I was apologizing for appropriating your soapbox reference, not criticizing your use of it. I think we are in perfect agreement.
Bill, thank you for the clarification. I misunderstood your reference.
Amber, we’re happy to provide a good example of people in a community working on their communication skills
Debra Elliss last blog post..Who’s Telling Your Story?
You’ve nailed it!! Thanks for giving me food for thought
You’ve nailed it!! Thanks for giving me food for thought
Feels to me like the issue might be, why don’t people who disrespect the community leave it? I mean, the Internet is open for anybody to say what they want, and we are all free to leave communities and conversations that bug us. If I’m offended by someone’s twittering, I can unfollow them. If I am angered by someone’s blog posts, I can stop reading. So is the issue that a few people stay around and lash back rather than just moving out of the community?
Feels to me like the issue might be, why don’t people who disrespect the community leave it? I mean, the Internet is open for anybody to say what they want, and we are all free to leave communities and conversations that bug us. If I’m offended by someone’s twittering, I can unfollow them. If I am angered by someone’s blog posts, I can stop reading. So is the issue that a few people stay around and lash back rather than just moving out of the community?
That’s a good question, Mary. The beauty of social media is that it’s opt-in (and opt-out). I think passion for a topic is what makes the uglies stick around and jump up and down a lot about it. And often, I think passion can bleed into ugly behavior even before the culprit really realizes it. That’s when forgiveness comes in. Heaven knows I’ve gone over the line a few times trying to defend a friend or a topic that’s dear to me.
What confounds me are the people who are just negative and nasty all the time, seemingly just for the purpose of being so. If it sucks so much, why don’t you just leave? Interesting thoughts.
I was thinking about this – maybe they were the kids who were ignored to the point of believing that even negative attention is still attention?
You know the ones I mean – who are so starved for attention that they learn that misbehavior is a way of getting it?
Perhaps our negative, destructive, trollish folks are simply nothing more than insecure attention seekers. 🙁
Lucretia Pruitts last blog post..Consistently Inconsistent
Good stuff. What I have learned as I was the manager of a community about 5 years ago, is that as much as the community stayed on point, there were those that either a) took more ownership of it than others b) or those that made it their life 24/7. all good except that in both cases, they assumed that this allowed them to do “things” that I might look the other way on.
As the manager, rules and T and C’s were in place and in some cases I had to boot people out. So what happened? I had death threats, nasty emails, blog posts and countless community posts that had to be deleted; and on top of that I also had the one person who took it upon themselves to try and follow me to every social net that I was a part of and make my life miserable by trashing, product, company, me, and the community. Brutal.
There’s the responsibility to the community yes, but there is also the responsibility to yourself to act in a civil and moral and ethical fashion. Unfortunately, Amber we are not all cut from that cloth of obligation; and expecting others to do the same is sometimes a tall task.
Marc Meyers last blog post..20 Twitter brands behaving badly
Good stuff. What I have learned as I was the manager of a community about 5 years ago, is that as much as the community stayed on point, there were those that either a) took more ownership of it than others b) or those that made it their life 24/7. all good except that in both cases, they assumed that this allowed them to do “things” that I might look the other way on.
As the manager, rules and T and C’s were in place and in some cases I had to boot people out. So what happened? I had death threats, nasty emails, blog posts and countless community posts that had to be deleted; and on top of that I also had the one person who took it upon themselves to try and follow me to every social net that I was a part of and make my life miserable by trashing, product, company, me, and the community. Brutal.
There’s the responsibility to the community yes, but there is also the responsibility to yourself to act in a civil and moral and ethical fashion. Unfortunately, Amber we are not all cut from that cloth of obligation; and expecting others to do the same is sometimes a tall task.
Marc Meyers last blog post..20 Twitter brands behaving badly
Tall task? You bet it is. Will that stop me from saying over and over that it’s the right thing to demand? Hell no.
I was thinking about this – maybe they were the kids who were ignored to the point of believing that even negative attention is still attention?
You know the ones I mean – who are so starved for attention that they learn that misbehavior is a way of getting it?
Perhaps our negative, destructive, trollish folks are simply nothing more than insecure attention seekers. 🙁
Lucretia Pruitts last blog post..Consistently Inconsistent
Well said, Amber. I am not afraid of criticism. In fact, most of the criticism I receive, I purposely ask for. I talk to my staff regularly about the importance of asking for, and providing feedback.
No matter the community, be it a company, a church, a city, or the internet, there will be people who use their lack of responsibility as fuel for the fire of abject contrarianism. I have learned to thicken my skin and remain open to constructive guidance. Thanks for this valuable post.
Clint Stonebrakers last blog post..Lessons From Modern Technology
Well said, Amber. I am not afraid of criticism. In fact, most of the criticism I receive, I purposely ask for. I talk to my staff regularly about the importance of asking for, and providing feedback.
No matter the community, be it a company, a church, a city, or the internet, there will be people who use their lack of responsibility as fuel for the fire of abject contrarianism. I have learned to thicken my skin and remain open to constructive guidance. Thanks for this valuable post.
Clint Stonebrakers last blog post..Lessons From Modern Technology
Your prose is poignant and full of deep meaning for the world on the web. Thank you for sharing your insight – hopefully more people will come together in the real world and share, commit time and energy as much as they do online.
Your prose is poignant and full of deep meaning for the world on the web. Thank you for sharing your insight – hopefully more people will come together in the real world and share, commit time and energy as much as they do online.
You wrote above, “That community is collectively invested in, and you are a part of it. You are not it’s purpose nor its sole steward. Simply put, it’s not about you.”
Yet, you commented here on Chris Brogan’s decision to delete his Facebook page, “I’m saying, quite simply, that it’s up to him. I’m not saying any one is right or wrong.”
Either I’m confused or Chris’ fan page was not about him. If that’s true, he did not have the right to take a hammer to its walls.
Help me out here?
Ari Herzogs last blog post..How to Find One New Blog to Read Today
You wrote above, “That community is collectively invested in, and you are a part of it. You are not it’s purpose nor its sole steward. Simply put, it’s not about you.”
Yet, you commented here on Chris Brogan’s decision to delete his Facebook page, “I’m saying, quite simply, that it’s up to him. I’m not saying any one is right or wrong.”
Either I’m confused or Chris’ fan page was not about him. If that’s true, he did not have the right to take a hammer to its walls.
Help me out here?
Ari Herzogs last blog post..How to Find One New Blog to Read Today
It’s quite simple, Ari. It’s Chris’ choice what tools he wants to use or not use. He doesn’t have to be present somewhere he doesn’t want to. That is personal choice about managing your own online presence.
That’s a damn sight different than just being a jackass on someone’s blog for the sake of it, or being a troll on Twitter, or tearing down someone’s reputation on a forum.
I’m talking about behavior and how you treat other people. Not the bricks and mortar. It’s never been about the tools. Where you decide to be present on the internet is up to you.
Wonderful post Amber and very topical for us in Anchorage right now where we’re having a battle on inclusion within city government. I agree people have a responsibility to be part of their community and hope we can come to grips with that her in Anchorage and end discrimination once and for all. I know it’s a tall order but one can always hope.
Wonderful post Amber and very topical for us in Anchorage right now where we’re having a battle on inclusion within city government. I agree people have a responsibility to be part of their community and hope we can come to grips with that her in Anchorage and end discrimination once and for all. I know it’s a tall order but one can always hope.
As Bill Free referenced above, this post reminds me a lot of Habitat for Humanity. They are all about “sweat equity.”
http://www.habitat.org/how/factsheet.aspx
dj
@djwaldow
DJ Waldows last blog post..The Anatomy Of An Email
As Bill Free referenced above, this post reminds me a lot of Habitat for Humanity. They are all about “sweat equity.”
http://www.habitat.org/how/factsheet.aspx
dj
@djwaldow
DJ Waldows last blog post..The Anatomy Of An Email
Contrarians are essential to communities in the same way that mutations are essential for evolution. Most mutations will wind up being discarded and most things a contrarian will espouse will be useless. But every now and then a mutation comes along- the opposable thumb, say- that by dumb luck turns out to be just the thing. Also, let’s show some empathy here, contrarians don’t do this on purpose. The truth is they simply can’t help themselves because they are wired that way. I know because I am one.
Communities should recognize that while perhaps a bit irritating, contrarians also serve a useful purpose. On the contrary, being a contrarian for the sake of it is essential for the health and growth of a vibrant community.
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person
were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in
silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be in
silencing mankind” -John Stuart Mill
Contrarians are essential to communities in the same way that mutations are essential for evolution. Most mutations will wind up being discarded and most things a contrarian will espouse will be useless. But every now and then a mutation comes along- the opposable thumb, say- that by dumb luck turns out to be just the thing. Also, let’s show some empathy here, contrarians don’t do this on purpose. The truth is they simply can’t help themselves because they are wired that way. I know because I am one.
Communities should recognize that while perhaps a bit irritating, contrarians also serve a useful purpose. On the contrary, being a contrarian for the sake of it is essential for the health and growth of a vibrant community.
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person
were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in
silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be in
silencing mankind” -John Stuart Mill
Being contrarian to provide an cogent alternative viewpoint is one thing. Doing so just for the sake of it, no. I don’t agree. I see too many examples of people who just upset the apple cart because they’re destructive. There’s a really big difference.
You’ll note that I said that intelligent disagreement is welcome, healthy and necessary. Always finding something to needle at – whether or not it’s relevant or on point – is not.
I find it fascinating when someone decides to hop into the wonderful world of social media with seemingly zero knowledge that social networking is more than 100,000 years old. Long before we were raising barns we were sharing information on cave walls and around campfires. This ain’t about Twitter!
To expect everyone to mind their manners is a large waste of good energy but it does require effort of those who share properly to stand up for the collective good. The conversation is not ours; it was here centuries before us and will be around long after we’re gone.
I see no difference between new media, old media, traditional media, social media and real life – it is all humans connecting and everyone has the right to contribute. If you are an (insert expletive here) then you revoke that right.
We all share in the responsibility of the collective good. You don’t get to come over to my place, sleep in my bed, eat my food, wear my clothes and complain about everything.
Find your own expletives to describe people like that.
@knealemann
Kneale Manns last blog post..How Can Social Media Help You?
I find it fascinating when someone decides to hop into the wonderful world of social media with seemingly zero knowledge that social networking is more than 100,000 years old. Long before we were raising barns we were sharing information on cave walls and around campfires. This ain’t about Twitter!
To expect everyone to mind their manners is a large waste of good energy but it does require effort of those who share properly to stand up for the collective good. The conversation is not ours; it was here centuries before us and will be around long after we’re gone.
I see no difference between new media, old media, traditional media, social media and real life – it is all humans connecting and everyone has the right to contribute. If you are an (insert expletive here) then you revoke that right.
We all share in the responsibility of the collective good. You don’t get to come over to my place, sleep in my bed, eat my food, wear my clothes and complain about everything.
Find your own expletives to describe people like that.
@knealemann
Kneale Manns last blog post..How Can Social Media Help You?
I’m the real Shady, all you other Slim Shady’s are just imitating, so won’t the real Shady please stand up, please stand up, please stand up?
I love this post and have nothing useful to add except that your community is so powerful.
Chris Brogan…s last blog post..The F Word
I’m the real Shady, all you other Slim Shady’s are just imitating, so won’t the real Shady please stand up, please stand up, please stand up?
I love this post and have nothing useful to add except that your community is so powerful.
Chris Brogan…s last blog post..The F Word
Community is about giving and respect. If we can’t act with respect, then all is lost, or as least minimalized to the point of losing its value. With regards to giving, that is the true purpose of creating community in the first place, online or off, as we give in a selfless manner that considers the needs of others before our own needs.
Community is about giving and respect. If we can’t act with respect, then all is lost, or as least minimalized to the point of losing its value. With regards to giving, that is the true purpose of creating community in the first place, online or off, as we give in a selfless manner that considers the needs of others before our own needs.
“The community decides what’s acceptable”
But that’s just group think, and means that everyone becomes a member of the thought police. Look what happened at Flickr.
As long as posters aren’t profane or personal in attacks, what’s wrong with tolerating dissenting voices?
I think that the barn-raising metaphor makes no sense in this context. Sometimes structures that don’t work or no longer serve the intended community or their own function DO need to be torn down. Insisting that everyone post only positive thoughts isn’t realistic nor is it helpful.
Why not just ignore people whose writings annoy you?
“The community decides what’s acceptable”
But that’s just group think, and means that everyone becomes a member of the thought police. Look what happened at Flickr.
As long as posters aren’t profane or personal in attacks, what’s wrong with tolerating dissenting voices?
I think that the barn-raising metaphor makes no sense in this context. Sometimes structures that don’t work or no longer serve the intended community or their own function DO need to be torn down. Insisting that everyone post only positive thoughts isn’t realistic nor is it helpful.
Why not just ignore people whose writings annoy you?
Slightly different discussion, but this post reminds me a conversation I had with a Chamber of Commerce honcho last fall. Basically, this is what I explained to him:
Ten years ago, people depended on you to create a community, and because you were the only real game in town, they joined and played along. Today, they don’t need you. They can get on Facebook, Twitter, Seesmic, YouTube and Ning, and create their own business community on their own terms. They meet where they want, when they want, how they want and don’t need you to dictate their schedule anymore. They associate with who they want and weed out people they don’t want. They opt-in and opt-out at will. They define and redefine purpose and strategy at will. They use real-time tools to collaborate, discuss issues and find contractors. The new community’s relevance isn’t about continuity or legacy anymore, it’s about actual relevance.
Communities form, grow and thrive on relevance, passion and interest. I see many companies trying to create communities in the Social Media space and failing miserably because they think that they have to BUILD something all on their own. A destination, an experience, content, etc. Truth is, the community is probably already there. It probably already lives online somewhere. The most successful community-building efforts I have seen online so far have been the ones where brand managers empowered their fans to create the community themselves. It does take a village.
Communities are about the community, not about the community leader. You have to empower the fans, not disenfranchise them by building a temple for them to worship you in. 🙂
You so rock for always writing fantastic posts, Amber.
olivier blanchards last blog post..Engagement Paradigm: Defining the value of “followers” on Twitter
Slightly different discussion, but this post reminds me a conversation I had with a Chamber of Commerce honcho last fall. Basically, this is what I explained to him:
Ten years ago, people depended on you to create a community, and because you were the only real game in town, they joined and played along. Today, they don’t need you. They can get on Facebook, Twitter, Seesmic, YouTube and Ning, and create their own business community on their own terms. They meet where they want, when they want, how they want and don’t need you to dictate their schedule anymore. They associate with who they want and weed out people they don’t want. They opt-in and opt-out at will. They define and redefine purpose and strategy at will. They use real-time tools to collaborate, discuss issues and find contractors. The new community’s relevance isn’t about continuity or legacy anymore, it’s about actual relevance.
Communities form, grow and thrive on relevance, passion and interest. I see many companies trying to create communities in the Social Media space and failing miserably because they think that they have to BUILD something all on their own. A destination, an experience, content, etc. Truth is, the community is probably already there. It probably already lives online somewhere. The most successful community-building efforts I have seen online so far have been the ones where brand managers empowered their fans to create the community themselves. It does take a village.
Communities are about the community, not about the community leader. You have to empower the fans, not disenfranchise them by building a temple for them to worship you in. 🙂
You so rock for always writing fantastic posts, Amber.
olivier blanchards last blog post..Engagement Paradigm: Defining the value of “followers” on Twitter
It’s a shame we can’t figure out a way to preserve some of the disruptive energy that makes the physical world such a fun place to be. As long as we rely on hastily typed comments, we lose the subtle nuances that colour a conversation. People get affronted, everything becomes a detail fest where every character is pored over, and the dynamic of a healthy discussion can be lost.
That’s why everyone plays nice all the time, it’s just a hell of a lot easier. But are we missing something by taking the flower strewn path of mutual admiration?
It’s a shame we can’t figure out a way to preserve some of the disruptive energy that makes the physical world such a fun place to be. As long as we rely on hastily typed comments, we lose the subtle nuances that colour a conversation. People get affronted, everything becomes a detail fest where every character is pored over, and the dynamic of a healthy discussion can be lost.
That’s why everyone plays nice all the time, it’s just a hell of a lot easier. But are we missing something by taking the flower strewn path of mutual admiration?
One more time, with feeling, for those to whom I’ve not been clear.
I am not nor will ever advocate a lack of dissent or differing opinion. I think healthy discourse and disagreement are essential for community growth. I do NOT think it’s all about being happy sunshine and roses all the time or a mutual admiration society.
However, the idea of intelligent discourse or constructive discussion is a damn sight different than making your point by being an asshole. One builds, the other is merely disrespectful and destructive. It’s about behaving like adults and using good judgment. That’s the point here.
I have to side with Amber on this: Dissent is vital, sure, but being a contrarian just for the sake of being a contrarian doesn’t bring a whole lot to the table.
Unless you have a valid counterpoint and either the semantic chops or substance to back it up, don’t fall into the heckler’s trap: Always being the guy in the back of the room who has to raise his hand to disagree about everything just to get attention. That’s not being smart or clever, it’s being an a**hole. There’s a big difference between presenting a valid counterpoint and being an antisocial attention addict.
Not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, but I’m calling a cat a cat. Meeeeeeeeow.
olivier blanchards last blog post..Engagement Paradigm: Defining the value of “followers” on Twitter
I have to side with Amber on this: Dissent is vital, sure, but being a contrarian just for the sake of being a contrarian doesn’t bring a whole lot to the table.
Unless you have a valid counterpoint and either the semantic chops or substance to back it up, don’t fall into the heckler’s trap: Always being the guy in the back of the room who has to raise his hand to disagree about everything just to get attention. That’s not being smart or clever, it’s being an a**hole. There’s a big difference between presenting a valid counterpoint and being an antisocial attention addict.
Not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, but I’m calling a cat a cat. Meeeeeeeeow.
olivier blanchards last blog post..Engagement Paradigm: Defining the value of “followers” on Twitter
So you’re either a constructive and positive contributor, or you’re an a-hole. But that’s my point about losing subtle nuance. I guess it’s because these communities are rooted in University-educated middle class libertarians – everyone’s always so goddam reasonable. No counterpoint can be tolerated unless prefaced by “I really do appreciate the effort you’ve obviously put in, but can I just be so bold as to offer a valuable insight that may sit contrary to your original position?” Can’t I just call you a fucktard instead?
Instead what we get is less direct, but snide. (Eg “One more time…” as if I’ve not been quite bright enough to understand what you’re saying). It’s smiling with a grimace. It can feel like I imagine a gated community in Florida feels. Round of golf anyone?
I know what you’re thinking. If you don’t like it, don’t play. Actually I do, I’m a University educated middle class guy, so I can fit in just fine. It’s just that I think we need to address the dynamics of online communication if we want to be truly inclusive.
Another example – I played the online game Travian for a bit. The etiquette that surrounds it can be quite an eye opener. If you message a player and forget to put a subject line in, that’s a big no-no. If you don’t speak respectfully to the guy who’s attacking your village, that’s another black mark.
I’d love to know if we’re becoming more apologetic – is that really healthy?
It’s not that you call me a fucktard. It’s WHY you call me a fucktard that matters. Well, to an extent anyway.
I know people that I love that call me terrible things. They get away with it because they do it FOR me, not just to me. Streakers that disrupt the game for the theater are one thing. Streakers that disrupt the game for publicity for themselves are another. It’s not the activity, it’s the intent.
Communities can only survive if they are composed of people that put the community above themselves. The people in the community have to be strong enough, and humble enough, to see who can’t remain, and who must.
Chris Joness last blog post..HVCC and AMCs: Three huge problems. One simple solution.
So you’re either a constructive and positive contributor, or you’re an a-hole. But that’s my point about losing subtle nuance. I guess it’s because these communities are rooted in University-educated middle class libertarians – everyone’s always so goddam reasonable. No counterpoint can be tolerated unless prefaced by “I really do appreciate the effort you’ve obviously put in, but can I just be so bold as to offer a valuable insight that may sit contrary to your original position?” Can’t I just call you a fucktard instead?
Instead what we get is less direct, but snide. (Eg “One more time…” as if I’ve not been quite bright enough to understand what you’re saying). It’s smiling with a grimace. It can feel like I imagine a gated community in Florida feels. Round of golf anyone?
I know what you’re thinking. If you don’t like it, don’t play. Actually I do, I’m a University educated middle class guy, so I can fit in just fine. It’s just that I think we need to address the dynamics of online communication if we want to be truly inclusive.
Another example – I played the online game Travian for a bit. The etiquette that surrounds it can be quite an eye opener. If you message a player and forget to put a subject line in, that’s a big no-no. If you don’t speak respectfully to the guy who’s attacking your village, that’s another black mark.
I’d love to know if we’re becoming more apologetic – is that really healthy?
It’s not that you call me a fucktard. It’s WHY you call me a fucktard that matters. Well, to an extent anyway.
I know people that I love that call me terrible things. They get away with it because they do it FOR me, not just to me. Streakers that disrupt the game for the theater are one thing. Streakers that disrupt the game for publicity for themselves are another. It’s not the activity, it’s the intent.
Communities can only survive if they are composed of people that put the community above themselves. The people in the community have to be strong enough, and humble enough, to see who can’t remain, and who must.
Chris Joness last blog post..HVCC and AMCs: Three huge problems. One simple solution.
Well this “comment conversation” has certainly gotten interesting…However, as I re-read the post and all of the ensuing comments, I believe this is exactly the point. A mini-community has developed on this very page – one that is allowing for open discussion, back and forth dialogue, and even a bit of “contrarianism.”
I want to stress what I think is one of the keys to Amber’s post (dare I say, “one more time”?):
“You bear the responsibility of creating dissonance with a positive purpose. Being contrarian for the sake of it is utterly valueless.
Sidebar: Firefox spell check does not recognize the word contrarian. Coincidence or…?
My 3 cents.
DJ Waldow
@djwaldow
DJ Waldows last blog post..100th Post Ends The Journey
Well this “comment conversation” has certainly gotten interesting…However, as I re-read the post and all of the ensuing comments, I believe this is exactly the point. A mini-community has developed on this very page – one that is allowing for open discussion, back and forth dialogue, and even a bit of “contrarianism.”
I want to stress what I think is one of the keys to Amber’s post (dare I say, “one more time”?):
“You bear the responsibility of creating dissonance with a positive purpose. Being contrarian for the sake of it is utterly valueless.
Sidebar: Firefox spell check does not recognize the word contrarian. Coincidence or…?
My 3 cents.
DJ Waldow
@djwaldow
DJ Waldows last blog post..100th Post Ends The Journey
I don’t disagree with a personal responsibility to add something of ‘value’ to any community. The problems usually start when we try to define what we consider ‘valuable’. Here in the UK (and I presume elsewhere) people take their clothes off and run across a sporting field. It’s selfish, self-indulgent and disrupts the flow of play. But it’s also theatre, and draws cheers and heckles in equal measure. The ‘community’ may decide that this adds nothing to the task in hand, and indeed some people may be offended by an equivalent act online, and therefore demand that the offending people are not allowed to participate.
I’m not advocating a ‘free-for-all, anarchic, say what you like and hang the consequences’ approach. It won’t happen because we are, as a species, very fond of conforming. I’d just like to preserve as much richness, colour and texture as is humanly possible, and ‘netiquette’ has proven disastrous at achieving this aim.
I don’t disagree with a personal responsibility to add something of ‘value’ to any community. The problems usually start when we try to define what we consider ‘valuable’. Here in the UK (and I presume elsewhere) people take their clothes off and run across a sporting field. It’s selfish, self-indulgent and disrupts the flow of play. But it’s also theatre, and draws cheers and heckles in equal measure. The ‘community’ may decide that this adds nothing to the task in hand, and indeed some people may be offended by an equivalent act online, and therefore demand that the offending people are not allowed to participate.
I’m not advocating a ‘free-for-all, anarchic, say what you like and hang the consequences’ approach. It won’t happen because we are, as a species, very fond of conforming. I’d just like to preserve as much richness, colour and texture as is humanly possible, and ‘netiquette’ has proven disastrous at achieving this aim.
You know what, Tim, I really do agree with you. I think we’re largely on the same page, really. And you can call me a fucktard anytime. 🙂 Seriously though. Part of what I relish about the community is the discourse, and yes, even when it gets a little heated.
I think you raise a valid point about “defining value”, and I’m really not advocating that we set some kind of unrealistic Emily Post kind of set of standards, because every community really is different in terms of their culture and tolerance level.
Anyone who knows me will attest to the fact that I’m not at all for some kind of blanket nice-nice. 🙂 I don’t roll like that, and I’m not afraid to speak my mind (and I always hope others will do the same). I suppose the flip side of your overly-apologetic coin, though, is the one that creates an online culture that has *no* expectations of appropriate behavior or respect. That’s what I’m railing against. I see more of the anarchic approach every day and people using their online anonymity as an excuse to dole out personal attacks, nastiness, and bully people. Not because they necessarily disagree with a premise, but because they like throwing rocks.
Yes, my standards for that might be different than yours, and that’s okay. But I’d like to think we all agree that while we might differ on where the line is, there *is* a line between being an impassioned voice of dissent and being destructive.
Damn you and your overflowing cup of reasonableness, I can find no cause to disagree with you now. How about you just stand still for a sec while I punch you in the face instead?? :OP
Damn you and your overflowing cup of reasonableness, I can find no cause to disagree with you now. How about you just stand still for a sec while I punch you in the face instead?? :OP
Having shared community on multiple continents, all I can say is that there are those that complain because they care about the people in the community, and about the community, and there are those that complain because they like to complain.
And if you care, you can tell the difference.
I’m the dissenter, more often than not. Most of us here, we’re iconoclasts anyway. We don’t readily fit and lock-step groupthink drives us bats. Amber is not advocating that we abandon that. But seriously, can’t you tell when someone wants the community to succeed, and has a legitimate concern? And can’t you tell when someone is trying to put himself ahead of the community, and grumbles because it’s a ways to make himself important?
We have a struggling community here, small and precious to those that live here. Today I spent part of the day defending one of our members against the Fire Marshal. He’s just doing his job, and we need him, but we need the bookstore, too. So we make peace, in a way, and try to remind the Fire Marshal that he’s a person that’s gonna need a quiet place to read one day, too. Eventually, almost always, they get it, and the community gets a bit bigger and a bit stronger.
And sometimes they don’t. The problem is, then what? Online, you unfollow or ignore. But what if they live with you?
Chris Joness last blog post..HVCC and AMCs: Three huge problems. One simple solution.
Having shared community on multiple continents, all I can say is that there are those that complain because they care about the people in the community, and about the community, and there are those that complain because they like to complain.
And if you care, you can tell the difference.
I’m the dissenter, more often than not. Most of us here, we’re iconoclasts anyway. We don’t readily fit and lock-step groupthink drives us bats. Amber is not advocating that we abandon that. But seriously, can’t you tell when someone wants the community to succeed, and has a legitimate concern? And can’t you tell when someone is trying to put himself ahead of the community, and grumbles because it’s a ways to make himself important?
We have a struggling community here, small and precious to those that live here. Today I spent part of the day defending one of our members against the Fire Marshal. He’s just doing his job, and we need him, but we need the bookstore, too. So we make peace, in a way, and try to remind the Fire Marshal that he’s a person that’s gonna need a quiet place to read one day, too. Eventually, almost always, they get it, and the community gets a bit bigger and a bit stronger.
And sometimes they don’t. The problem is, then what? Online, you unfollow or ignore. But what if they live with you?
Chris Joness last blog post..HVCC and AMCs: Three huge problems. One simple solution.
Hello, weblog in a new directory of blogs. I dont know how your weblog arrived up, possess been the typo, Your weblog looks great. Possess a nice day.
Hello, weblog in a new directory of blogs. I dont know how your weblog arrived up, possess been the typo, Your weblog looks great. Possess a nice day.